Freethought & Rationalism Archive

thebeave · 07-30-2003, 06:05 AM

One thing I've wondered about is that the God of the Bible spent 6 days creating the universe (1 billion+ galaxies each with about 1 billion+ stars), then took a day of rest. Kinda like me digging a ditch for 6 hours and then taking an hour to rest (with a cold beer, of course). To me, that day of rest subtly implies he is not truly omnipotent, and that somewhere he has a breaking point. Think about it... What if God were to try to create a universe that was 1000 billion quadrillion times the size of the one we are in now? Could he get buy with a just a few thousand years of rest and a Jupiter sized tube of Ben-Gay after doing that? Or would he get to a trillion galaxies and just be so whipped with fatigue that he can't continue?! Seems to me that he would be one hurtin' puppy after that doing that. Probably even too tired to intervene in a Texas high school football game, methinks.

xorbie · 07-30-2003, 07:35 AM

Quote:

"Something exists that an omniscient being does not know" is not a logical state of affairs, no, but I would argue that omniscience is impossible. Lets start with an actual logical state of affairs: Someone learns. This is a logical state of affairs that (as far as I know) any person can achieve. It is also something God cannot do because it contradicts his nature (omniscience). This means he is not omnipotent. A theist might argue that since it contradicts his nature it's logically incoherent. That's where McEar comes in. McEar is defined as someone who can only scratch his ear. Anything else is against his nature and logically incoherent. By the same rules one could claim McEar is omnipotent. Clearly he is not though, as he cannot bring about any other logical state of affairs that another being could. The fact that it is against his nature is not an argument, just like omniscience being in God's nature is not an argument that saves his omnipotence. There are things that a supposedly omnipotent being cannot do, and his nature does not help him.

Just because someone other than God can learn, does not mean that God's inability to do so makes it not omnipotent. Once again, God can bring about any state of affairs that is logically possible, which McEar cannot. This has nothing to do with natures, or doing any task. Omnipotence = ability to bring about any logically possible state of affairs. I think that gets around any silly loophole you may have.

long winded fool · 07-30-2003, 09:52 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by xorbie
Just because someone other than God can learn, does not mean that God's inability to do so makes it not omnipotent. Once again, God can bring about any state of affairs that is logically possible, which McEar cannot. This has nothing to do with natures, or doing any task. Omnipotence = ability to bring about any logically possible state of affairs. I think that gets around any silly loophole you may have.

Exactly. Being limited by an unlimited nature only sounds like a limitation to limited things. The inability to be limited is an ability to do absolutely anything at all. They are logically synonymous, despite the word "inability." "But he can't limit himself" can be transposed to "But he can't be non-omnipotent," which can also be trasposed "But he can't will something outside of his power." Which is logically true if he is omnipotent. This says nothing about "his power." It is a statement on the possibility of the existence of things outside of whatever "his power" is. If his power is unlimited, then nothing can exist outside of it. Assuming something "outside of his power" as a premise and then asking if he has the power to do it is not logical.

There's no reason that I can think of to assume omnipotence actually exists in the universe. But there is no inherent paradox in the idea of omnipotence.

Sylvan Wizard · 07-30-2003, 10:26 AM

Quote:

Just because someone other than God can learn, does not mean that God's inability to do so makes it not omnipotent. Once again, God can bring about any state of affairs that is logically possible, which McEar cannot. This has nothing to do with natures, or doing any task.

There are logical states of affairs that God cannot bring about, that he cannot do because of his nature. He is therefore limited and not omnipotent.

Quote:

Exactly. Being limited by an unlimited nature only sounds like a limitation to limited things.

Doesn't sound like a limit to me.

Quote:

There's no reason that I can think of to assume omnipotence actually exists in the universe. But there is no inherent paradox in the idea of omnipotence.

It shows not a conflict with itself, but with reality. There are logical states of affairs that he could not bring about.

Omnipotence actually requires omniscience because if there were something an omnipotent being did not know, there would be something he could not do. Yet an omniscient being has no ability to make choices, or change his mind. An omniscient being can't do anything other than what he knows he will do. This shows that omniscience is both mutually exclusive to omnipotence, and also a necessity to it. Such a state is incoherent, as those two states themselves are mutually exclusive.

Calzaer · 07-30-2003, 09:19 PM

Quote:

I don't think God can imbue himself with more power. If God could, God would not be omni-potent.

But if he couldn't give himself more power, he wouldn't be omnipotent in the first place. Omnipotent is much like infinite... you can keep adding more numbers to get a bigger infinity.

The AntiChris · 07-30-2003, 11:24 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Calzaer
.........a bigger infinity.

Interesting concept!

Chris

Thomas Metcalf · 07-31-2003, 02:13 AM

Originally posted by xorbie :

Quote:

Once again, God can bring about any state of affairs that is logically possible, which McEar cannot.

Yes or no: "some person learns without being caused by someone else to learn" is a logically possible state of affairs.

Thomas Metcalf · 07-31-2003, 02:15 AM

Originally posted by Calzaer :

Quote:

God creates stone he does not have the power to lift.

God then imbues himself with the extra power required to lift the stone.

Where's the paradox?

Predictably, the paradox is easily rewordable. God cannot create a stone he will never be able to lift.

Thomas Metcalf · 07-31-2003, 02:17 AM

Originally posted by xorbie :

Quote:

Omnipotence is logically possible when defined as "having the capability do bring about any logically consistent state X is acheived."

The state "a rock is created, the creator of which cannot lift," is logically consistent.

Quote:

Thus, it is logically impossible that there exist something for God to learn (but not logically impossible for God to actually learn, I believe).

You think God could learn? How would that be possible if God already knows everything? It's like saying I could visit Paris for the first time again. No, if I've visited it once, I can never visit it for the first time.

Calzaer · 07-31-2003, 11:41 AM

The AntiChrist: A repost of Quantum Ninja's explanation:

Quote:

It actually depends on what kind of "infinity" you're subtracting from both sides. Infinity isn't really a unique value; some "infinities" grow faster than others.

For instance:

lim(x --> infinity) [ x^2 - x ] = infinity - infinity
Which is an indeterminate form, but since lim(x --> infinity) [ x^2 ] grows at a faster rate than lim(x --> infinity) [ x^2 ], it is a
"bigger" infinity. Thus, the final limit is just "infinity," which really means the limit doesn't exist.

On the other hand, consider this:
lim(x --> infinity) [ x - x ] = infinity - infinity
Again, infinity - infinity is an indeterminate form, but after you simplify the expression, it becomes:
lim(x --> infinity) [ 0 ], which is just 0. In this case, both "infinities" are equal to each other.

Or you can also have:
lim(x --> infinity) [ x - x^2 ] = infinity - infinity = - infinity
Thus, you can subtract two infinities and obtain either infinity, a finite value, or negative infinity.

***

Thomas Metcalf:

Quote:

Predictably, the paradox is easily rewordable. God cannot create a stone he will never be able to lift.

Sure he can. If he never imbues himself with the requisite power, he'll never be able to lift the rock.

I suppose the paradox would have to be yet again reworded to "God cannot make a rock he cannot chose to make himself able to lift," at which point it just becomes silly. It's no longer a limitation on his omnipotence. To NOT be able to create a rock he could chose to make himself able to lift is the limit, and that limit is not present.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

07-30-2003, 06:05 AM	#61
thebeave Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Silicon Valley, CA Posts: 4,183	One thing I've wondered about is that the God of the Bible spent 6 days creating the universe (1 billion+ galaxies each with about 1 billion+ stars), then took a day of rest. Kinda like me digging a ditch for 6 hours and then taking an hour to rest (with a cold beer, of course). To me, that day of rest subtly implies he is not truly omnipotent, and that somewhere he has a breaking point. Think about it... What if God were to try to create a universe that was 1000 billion quadrillion times the size of the one we are in now? Could he get buy with a just a few thousand years of rest and a Jupiter sized tube of Ben-Gay after doing that? Or would he get to a trillion galaxies and just be so whipped with fatigue that he can't continue?! Seems to me that he would be one hurtin' puppy after that doing that. Probably even too tired to intervene in a Texas high school football game, methinks.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.